Homebrew defense to strong 1C

[mfa1010]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj973hadtcakj98&w=sahkqt943dkq2c752&n=s62h875dj9875ct43&e=st854hj62da643cq6&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1cdp1d4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

EW are underdogs in this match and not regular partners. Just before the 12-board match they agreed to play west's homebrew defense to precision which east knew but only have played a very few times. The defense includes DONT-like bids at the 1-level and 1♠ showing "13 cards".

 

X of the precision opening was therefore explained as ♣+another.

 

Declarer won ♥A, played ♠K to A, won ♥ return, drew ♠QJ where west pitched a heart and a club(!).

 

Declarer then proceeded to cash ♣A and play a small ♣! Down one.

 

Upon request west explains that he is in trouble about what to bid over 1♣. He can't show a onesuiter except for jumping to 2♥. But with a strong hand that is not ideal, so with his regular partner they have agreed to X and then bid hearts to show this hand type (strong 6-3). It's unclear how much of all this east knows.

 

Adjusted score? I was not at the table so feel free to be harsh on either side.

[ggwhiz]

Result stands.

 

What was Declarer thinking? They weren't, they just gave up and the wound is self inflicted.

[mfa1010]

Result stands.

 

What was Declarer thinking? They weren't, they just gave up and the wound is self inflicted.

 

South's thinking:

 

After ♣A he "knew" that west must have the remaining ♣Qx. Cashing ♣K would make it easy for the defense. Playing small ♣ poses a problem to west, since rising Q risks crashing partner's K. Declarer knows that west doesn't know for sure that 1 club trick would be enough for a set.

[ggwhiz]

South's thinking:

 

After ♣A he "knew" that west must have the remaining ♣Qx. Cashing ♣K would make it easy for the defense. Playing small ♣ poses a problem to west, since rising Q risks crashing partner's K. Declarer knows that west doesn't know for sure that 1 club trick would be enough for a set.

 

Fair enough but the agreement was properly disclosed. If the hand didn't match that agreement, there is no foul.

 

I would assume the declaring side knew this was an unfamiliar partnership but even if not, where is the foul?

[mfa1010]

Fair enough but the agreement was properly disclosed. If the hand didn't match that agreement, there is no foul.

 

I would assume the declaring side knew this was an unfamiliar partnership but even if not, where is the foul?

NS's argument was a approx. like this:

 

Even if there is an anything goes system policy against precision openings, there is no relaxation about disclosing requirements. NS felt that they should have been told that there was no other systemic option for a hand like the actual one other than to initially show a 2-suiter and then follow up.

 

West said afterwards that he could also have chosen 1♦ (♦+ a higher) but felt that X would be more flexible even though clubs were worse than diamonds.

 

I don't know if NS knew that EW were not a regular partnership. But they likely did overhear that EW were discussing their defense to 1♣ at the table before play.

[wank]

it's perfectly simple, if the EW discussion involved agreeing that double shows clubs + ? or this hand declarer should have been told and should get imo full redress. his line was perfectly sensible.

 

on the other hand, did west just decide to tack this extra onto what he had agreed with east and hope to wing it, perhaps because this is what he does with other partners? in this case, east-west only had the agreement declarer was told about so rub of the green.

 

it sounds to me like it's the latter case, but obviously you'd need to quiz east more to know

[ggwhiz]

If the disclosing side is required to complete said disclosure with "could be this, could be that, could be something else" without further prompting are we not getting into a Monty Pythonesque sequence? Now for something completely different.

 

I don't necessarily think it is right but we have to play hands dealt today umm today. I have no reason to suspect that a casual partner would have this hand and not have chosen to show ♦ plus another but they are allowed to do whatever they feel like as long as I don't field it.

[blackshoe]

This does sound like west violated their actual agreement but I agree a little more questioning of east would have been appropriate. I note that the TD is to rule mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid "in the absence of evidence to the contrary", but here we have such evidence, and it seems to me the preponderance of all the evidence leans towards mistaken bid. Further questioning of East might tip it the other way (which is why I'd investigate further) but if it doesn't, or he's no longer available for questioning, I'd rule result stands.

[paulg]

From the explanations, I feel that West is playing a different defence to East and this has resulted in misinformation. I would rule for North-South.

[mfa1010]

@ wank and blackshoe

 

Yep. Unfortunately I can't get any closer as to what EW explained since this is second hand and it would not be fair to guess. I could easily have been imprecise already with my initial post (without knowing it).

[mfa1010]

Say some pair agrees and explains any of their 1-openings as "5+ cards". Inevitably they will have an impossible hand for this system and have to lie and open a 4-card suit. Would that be misinformation even on the first time it happened?

 

That is an extreme and unlikely example. But it has similarities to the actual case. EW have devised a system that can't handle a normal opening hand with a 1-suiter, since:

 

X, 1♦, 1♥ show the suit + a higher,

Pass shows 16+ any (!)

1♠ shows any 13 cards and a bad hand

2X, 3X show a preempt hand

I don't know what 1NT shows

 

That is not a coherent system. There is no bid for a 12-15 onesuiter. Is it ok to agree to play it anyway, inevitably having to lie and then just explain "sorry opps, I had to lie, there was no bid for [this very ordinary hand] in our system, so I just had to show a suit I didn't have"? "Partner didn't know, since we haven't discussed this particular problem".

 

I play precision myself and I'm therefore interested in this dilemma. Many pairs play a very destructive style against 1♣, where the focus is almost entirely on making it hard for us to bid. That is perfectly legal. But do the precisioners, we, have to tolerate the situation above? Where it almost seems like having an ill-defined system is a destructive weapon itself? Usually having an ill-defined system is bad for the pair using it, but this is much less clear when the focus is mainly on destruction.

 

The main objections is that the bidding side is after all closest to know the exact content (and holes!!) of their own system. And it may be hard or impossible to prove that a "misbid" on a hand that just didn't fit was fielded, since partner just tended to stay a little flexible in the bidding and defense as always, that's all.

 

Comments appreciated.

 

(P.S. I actually love it when opponents launch their homebrew since they so often make desperate bids that go for a number. :P)

[paulg]

Say some pair agrees and explains any of their 1-openings as "5+ cards". Inevitably they will have an impossible hand for this system and have to lie and open a 4-card suit. Would that be misinformation even on the first time it happened?

 

 

I felt that the difference in this case is that West does know of the problem and knows how to show a one-suiter. He just forgot to explain it to his partner.

 

I now fear that this may not be enough to adjust and that I may be turning into Bobby Wolff.

 

 

[bluejak]

EW are underdogs in this match and not regular partners. Just before the 12-board match they agreed to play west's homebrew defense to precision which east knew but only have played a very few times. The defense includes DONT-like bids at the 1-level and 1♠ showing "13 cards".

 

X of the precision opening was therefore explained as ♣+another.

 

Upon request west explains that he is in trouble about what to bid over 1♣. He can't show a onesuiter except for jumping to 2♥. But with a strong hand that is not ideal, so with his regular partner they have agreed to X and then bid hearts to show this hand type (strong 6-3). It's unclear how much of all this east knows.

East has agreed to play something. That something has been worked out by West with another partner to include double as possibly 6 hearts and three clubs. Whether East knew this is unclear.

 

Sounds like MI to me: it was part of the agreement.

 

:ph34r:

 

As one who plays 'home-brew' [as people here call them] methods over a strong club, two comments.

 

First, I play them because I have had more good results than bad. So in reply to mfa1010's

 

I actually love it when opponents launch their homebrew since they so often make desperate bids that go for a number

I should be happy to play them against him.

 

Secondly, with a one-suiter we either show it, and a weak hand, or pass because it is too good. There are no hands in-between! :P

[blackshoe]

It sounds to me like this homebrew system was West's idea. So I don't think you can say this EW had an agreement if West didn't tell East about this part — and it sounds to me like he didn't.

[helene_t]

[....] I may be turning into Bobby Wolff.

Uh-oh did you get bidden on Halloween night?

[nige1]

Upon request west explains that he is in trouble about what to bid over 1♣. He can't show a onesuiter except for jumping to 2♥. But with a strong hand that is not ideal, so with his regular partner they have agreed to X and then bid hearts to show this hand type (strong 6-3). It's unclear how much of all this east knows.

Assuming that the director asked East how much he knew of this ramification of the EW agreement and East's reply was ambiguous, I agree with Bluejak that the director should rule mis-information.

Declarer believed East's explanation that West had a ♣ suit and tried a cunning ruse that might work against a greedy opponent with ♣Qxx.. Presumably, without the (putative) misinformation, declarer would have succeeded. So the director may rule damage.

[peachy]

Intuitively this feels like MI, but going into facts, it was West who invented a bid on the fly when there was a hole in the system - and which hole he had agreed with other partners how to fix but which fix was not part of the methods agreed at this table with this partner. So in the end, unfortunately IMO, it should be ruled as a misbid because East gave the true description of the agreement he had with West.

 

OP mentioned part of the so-called system was *1♠ showing "13 cards"*. A little off topic, but I am sure that in most jurisdictions this is either not allowed or it is classified as HUM or Brown Sticker or whatever the name for a method where the primary purpose of the agreement is to destroy the opponents' methods, and as such its use would be restricted. Whether this 1♠ succeeds in its primary purpose of "destroying... etc" is of course irrelevant.

[bluejak]

It is not HUM: it is not Brown Sticker [i think]: it is legal in England and Wales.

[WellSpyder]

... it is legal in England and Wales.

Subject to proper disclosure, of course, which is in my view pretty much impossible for something claimed to be "random" or "13 cards". Certainly I don't believe those who describe such a bid as showing 13 cards actually make the bid whenever they have 13 cards, and neither do I believe that it is completely random whether or not they make the bid since there are usually other bids available, too, which are sometimes chosen instead when appropriate.

[mfa1010]

Intuitively this feels like MI, but going into facts, it was West who invented a bid on the fly when there was a hole in the system - and which hole he had agreed with other partners how to fix but which fix was not part of the methods agreed at this table with this partner. So in the end, unfortunately IMO, it should be ruled as a misbid because East gave the true description of the agreement he had with West.

 

It's just that EW seem so much more likely to get it right at the table than NS. E is a thinking person. Maybe he has noticed the hole already (it's not like it's a small one...). Or maybe he will be able to figure out what is going on if something looks strange underway. In bidding or in defense.

 

NS on the other hand have virtually no chance. They are only told about a piece of the whole system (the meaning of double) and it is unrealistic that they will ever suspect a hole and a consequent offbeat bid.

 

This annoys me.

[bluejak]

I'm unhappy.

 

I sit down opposite a partner I have only played with once before. We have agreed to play Benjamin Acol, with a weak NT not vul, and a strong NT vulnerable.

 

I open 1♣ [vulnerable] with

[hv=pc=n&s=skj64hqt92da9ckj2]133|100[/hv]

which I know from playing over the years with various partners is what you do in Acol when you have a weak NT hand but are not playing a weak NT. Partner is asked and says I have at least four clubs. It becomes critical in the defence and opponents go wrong, miscounting my hand.

 

When asked, my partner did not know that a three card club opening is part of Acol. It certainly is, and many people have played it.

 

Tough, we tell opponents, since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol but partner did not know it is part of Acol.

 

Everyone happy with no MI, no adjustment?

[dan_ehh]

I think "partner has 4 ♣s" is misinformation, and the correct answer should have been "We have only played once before. We agreed to play Acol but we do not have solid agreements and misunderstandings may occur".

 

You said so yourself, "... since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol ...".

If this is the answer retrospectively, it should also have been the answer at the critical moment. Actually, I think you should have corrected the explanation when you became declarer.

 

Slight degression -

Of course, this is a very big problem, because one could argue that this correction strongly implies you really do not have 4 of them and that my take basically means you have to tell them what cards you hold. However, I don't think this is true, because you should offer this correction even when you do have 4 of them. This of course leads to the other side of the problem - opponents may later claim to have been misled by the "correction".

I believe there was an appeal discussing this specific matter not too long ago, which involved a top player in the states. Also a thread in this forum discussing the appeal.

 

 

 

 

I'm unhappy.

 

I sit down opposite a partner I have only played with once before. We have agreed to play Benjamin Acol, with a weak NT not vul, and a strong NT vulnerable.

 

I open 1♣ [vulnerable] with

[hv=pc=n&s=skj64hqt92da9ckj2]133|100[/hv]

which I know from playing over the years with various partners is what you do in Acol when you have a weak NT hand but are not playing a weak NT. Partner is asked and says I have at least four clubs. It becomes critical in the defence and opponents go wrong, miscounting my hand.

 

When asked, my partner did not know that a three card club opening is part of Acol. It certainly is, and many people have played it.

 

Tough, we tell opponents, since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol but partner did not know it is part of Acol.

 

Everyone happy with no MI, no adjustment?

[Zelandakh]

Tough, we tell opponents, since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol but partner did not know it is part of Acol.

 

Everyone happy with no MI, no adjustment?

As you well know David, for many Acolites, perhaps even the majority, your example hand would be a 1H (wtp) kind of hand. I am sure that many would never even consider another opening bid with this hand shape outside of their NT range. 'Acol' is a set of generalised agreements and not a codified agreement for individual bids. It means different things in different countries, even different areas of countries.

 

I note that in this matter the EBU advice is also to open such a hand 1H and for all 1 of a suit opening bids to be 4+. So for a scratch partnership I am indeed happy to rule that the 1C bid was essentially a psyche within the original agreement. However, having done it this one time there is now an understanding that this is a possibility and should be disclosed in future. I think for such a common auction it only takes one such incident for this sort of thing to become an understanding.

 

In the same manner West's double here is a psyche within the agreement that E-W are reported to have had. It might have workd out very badly had East decided to raise clubs. West took a gamble and got away with it. Now East is aware of the additional hand-types possible for double and can give a different explanation in future. Note that if I were East and agreed these DONT-style bids over 1C I would assume that pass was the proper procedure with a good 1-suiter. I do not think it is reasonable to assume this East could possibly untangle the mess West made; double followed by some number of hearts would surely be interpreted as clubs + hearts.

 

Finally, if someone bids 1S "any 13 cards" against my 1C I will ask them what hand types they cannot have. If they refuse to be forthcoming then I will then spend some time going through every possible alternative call to find it out. If the TD wants to take issue with this then I will explain that the opps refused to give disclosure. If the opps refuse to answer the questions then I will call the TD myself.

[mycroft]

I'm thinking of the classic weak NT auction:

 

1NT-X - our rescue system has bids for one- and two- suiters, and uses Pass-forces-XX. Unfortunately, they haven't discussed what to do with the hand they actually have - a 3433 1-count. Responder guesses logically to bid 2C "to play", and XX if doubled, should get the point across. Doubler's side bids on to 3NT (without allowing responder to XX 2C X), and plays the clubs wrong. No MI, no adjustment? Declarer should be expected to work out that there's a hole in the system given to him (if the system was given to him, and not just the meaning of 2C), and be able to do the "bridge logic" that responder did, even though he's never played weak NT in his life?

 

As a Precision player, I do find it annoying that the opponents get to play "3C Ghestem-or-clubs" against us with impunity: 1C-1H is either whatever crazy thing they've agreed it should be, or natural with hearts because they forgot again. Again, like Ghestem 3C, the ambiguity is more likely to benefit the side without the points; again, like Ghestem 3C, it happens at least one time in 4; again, like Ghestem 3C, the opponents get "the agreement", not "the agreement, and the history".

 

But I do believe that people should be allowed to forget their agreements, and to benefit from the forget occasionally. I don't really know how to resolve this. (Please note that I ruled on a 2=5=1=5 Flannery opening a couple of weeks ago - I have experience with this person, and believe him that he was looking at 4=5=1=3 when he opened (as he explained. So I know it happens with other things than interference).

[wank]

I'm unhappy.

 

I sit down opposite a partner I have only played with once before. We have agreed to play Benjamin Acol, with a weak NT not vul, and a strong NT vulnerable.

 

I open 1♣ [vulnerable] with

[hv=pc=n&s=skj64hqt92da9ckj2]133|100[/hv]

which I know from playing over the years with various partners is what you do in Acol when you have a weak NT hand but are not playing a weak NT. Partner is asked and says I have at least four clubs. It becomes critical in the defence and opponents go wrong, miscounting my hand.

 

When asked, my partner did not know that a three card club opening is part of Acol. It certainly is, and many people have played it.

 

Tough, we tell opponents, since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol but partner did not know it is part of Acol.

 

Everyone happy with no MI, no adjustment?

 

one presumes you learnt your acol in the netherlands. in the UK we play acol with 4 card majors.